The European Union’s Landscapes for Our Future programme supports 22 integrated landscape management projects across 19 countries and 3 sub-regions across the Global South.
Can multi-stakeholder forums mediate indigenous rights and development priorities? Insights from the Peruvian Amazon
This article examines the role of a multi-stakeholder forum (MSF) called PIACI Roundtable in protecting indigenous peoples in isolation and initial contact (PIACI) in Peru's Loreto region. The MSF aimed to address delays in establishing Indigenous Reserves for PIACI. The article highlights the potential of MSFs to raise awareness and coordinate actions for vulnerable groups, but emphasizes the importance of shared respect for recognized rights among participants. Without such respect, MSFs may prioritize other perspectives over the rights of marginalized communities.
Designing for engagement: A Realist Synthesis Review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change
This Realist Synthesis Review analyses scholarly literature on multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) for sustainable land use. It focusses on subnational MSFs involving grassroots and government actors. The review highlights key contextual variables and identifies four common lessons: commitment, engagement of implementers, openness to stakeholders, and adaptive design. Successful MSFs are recognized as part of a transformative process, involve research and meetings, build consensus and commitment, and prioritize adaptive learning. The central lesson is to design for engagement that addresses the context for greater success.
Designing for engagement: Insights for more equitable and resilient multi-stakeholder forums
A process that is engaged, committed and adaptive allows for all actors to build trust, and thus has the best chance of success moving forward. This literature review highlights the importance of engagement within an MSF.
How Are Land-Use Multi-stakeholder Fora Affected by Their Contexts?
This chapter examines the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder mechanisms in addressing power relations in forest and land use decision-making. It analyzes eight multi-stakeholder fora in the Peruvian Amazon, specifically in the Madre de Dios and San Martin regions. The chapter uses three ideal types (decision-making, management, and influence) to analyze these mechanisms based on a review of the literature. It highlights the influence of context, processes, and outcomes on the functioning of multi-stakeholder fora.
How are we doing? A tool to reflect on the process, progress and priorities of your multi-stakeholder forum
This handbook introduces "How are we doing?", a tool for participatory monitoring in multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs). It helps MSF participants reflect, assess progress, and plan for achieving their goals. Developed in collaboration with MSF members, it focuses on inclusive decision-making and collective learning.
Intensity and embeddedness: Two dimensions of equity approaches in multi-stakeholder forums
This paper introduces a novel approach to studying multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) in the context of land use and land-use change, focusing on their equity implications. The authors analyse MSFs based on two key characteristics: the extent to which local communities are actively involved (intensity) and the extent to which the forum is integrated into broader societal or governmental processes (embeddedness). By employing these analytical tools, the paper offers nuanced insights into how different MSF approaches function and their impact on equity, going beyond simplistic categorizations and providing a deeper understanding of MSF dynamics.
Introduction – Multi-stakeholder forums and the promise of more equitable and sustainable land and resource use: perspectives from Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru
This Special Issue of the International Forestry Review presents a multi-country comparative research project by CIFOR, exploring the potential of multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) as participatory mechanisms for sustainable land and resource use. The seven papers analyse power inequalities inherent in MSFs and discuss their capacity for equitable decision-making. While approaching MSFs from different perspectives, the papers emphasize the need for transformative MSFs that go beyond mere participation to achieve meaningful change.
The role of multi-stakeholder forums in subnational jurisdictions: Framing literature review for in-depth field research
Drawing on 30+ years of experience, this Literature Review informs CIFOR's research on multi-stakeholder forums addressing land use in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru. It explores the potential of MSFs to coordinate goals effectively while cautioning against token participation and aims to contribute to the study of participatory processes in the context of climate change.
Trust-building and leadership in multi-stakeholder forums: Lessons from Indonesia
This paper investigates the impact of trust and leadership in multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) addressing land and resource use in Indonesia. Conflicting interests can hinder trust-building, requiring an understanding of historical relationships to improve collaboration. Different challenges within MSFs call for specific leadership styles, including shared leadership for positive relationships and charismatic leadership for conflicts of interest or lack of trust.
The costs of elite-oriented multi-stakeholder forums to address deforestation: the case of the Green Municipalities Program in the Brazilian Amazon
This article examines the Green Municipalities Program (PMV) in Pará state, Brazil, a multi-stakeholder forum aimed at combating deforestation. Through qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews, it critiques the program's strategy of collaborating with powerful sectors while excluding indigenous and grassroots organizations. The research highlights the limitations of "anti-politics" approaches that fail to address underlying causes of environmental problems and raises concerns about the legitimacy of initiatives perceived as unjust in unequal contexts.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best website experience.
By clicking “I Accept” you acknowledge the use of cookies and to our Privacy Notice and our Terms of Use.